U N I V E R S I T Y O F O S L O
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
TIK
Centre for technology, innovation and culture P.O. BOX 1108 Blindern
N-0317 OSLO Norway http://www.tik.uio.no
ESST
The European Inter-University Association on Society, Science and
Technology http://www.esst.uio.no
The ESST MA
Creating knowledge in firms and collaborations
A case study of knowledge creation in innovation Wenche Bakkebråten
University of Oslo
Globalisation, Innovation and Policy 01.10.2001
Word count: 23575
Preface
Doing independent research for the first time has been a real learning experience. The amount of hours that has gone into the preparations for this paper you now hold in your hands has far exceeded what I would have imagined before I started.
So have the pleasures and discomforts that accompany working so intensely on one single project.
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank the informants of this thesis, who made the collecting of empirical material a real learning experience
I am indebted to my supervisor Finn Ørstavik for excellent guidance throughout the work of this thesis, as well as for access to the STEP Cotech-database and for helping me get access to interviewees.
Ivan,
I am truly grateful for your unconditional support
Synopsis
This thesis takes the approach of the knowledge-based view of organisations, as it argues that learning potential influences firm competitiveness. The connection between knowledge and innovation may seem self-evident, but is at the same time difficult to specify. Common sense will tell us that creation of new knowledge must be at the core of every innovation. To be able to make something new, existing knowledge must be creatively re-combined, or new insights must emerge. For actors to launch a product innovation on the market, some learning must have occurred. The process of learning that is inherent in the innovation process is at the core of this thesis.
This master thesis endeavours to explore what conditions must be present for knowledge creation and knowledge transfer to occur, both inside a firm and in an innovation collaboration. As a means to accomplish this task, a case study of fifteen Oslo-based companies in a wide variety of sectors was carried out. The main purpose of the empirical work was to test some basic theoretical assumptions of what the typical learning and innovating organisation looks like.
The problem concerns what factors that must be present in firms, and innovation collaborations, for significant learning to be generated.
Four different but related perspectives were chosen to explore this problem:
1: The relationship between organisational form and learning potential 2: Interaction forms suited for knowledge creation and transfer
3: The strategies firms should use, and are using, to ensure knowledge transfer 4: The relationship between learning and innovation and connection to knowledge infrastructure.
The firms included in this study far exceed the categories theory assumes are coherent with learning and innovating organisations. One tentative conclusion that can be drawn from this limited empirical basis is that these theoretical claims are overly assertive and that theory should be revised on the basis of more case studies of learning and innovation at the micro level.
Keywords: knowledge, learning, innovation, collaboration, organisational type, interaction forms, strategies, innovation system.
Table of contents
Preface...i
Synopsis ...ii
Table of contents...1
List of tables and figures...4
Chapter 1: Introduction...5
1.1 Societal and scientific background ...5
1.2:The ESST program: ...6
1.3: Aim ...6
1.4: Problem formulation...7
1.5: Research questions ...7
1.6:Contributions ...8
1.7:Thesis outline:...8
1.8:Core concepts...8
1.8.1:What is knowledge?...8
1.8.2:Knowledge is something more than and different from information ...8
1.8.3: Knowledge is social ...10
1.8.4:Tacit knowledge is not easily transferred ...10
1.8.5: What is learning? ...12
1.8.6:What is innovation? ...12
1.8.7: What is collaboration? ...13
1.9:The K-L-I-C concepts and their connections...13
Chapter 2: Research design and methods ...15
2.1:Design ...15
2.2:Selection criteria and relation to previous studies ...16
2.3:Explorative objective ...17
2.3.1: Comparative research ...18
2.3.2:Interview as a method ...18
2.3.2:Questionnaire as a method...19
2.4:Time as a methodological challenge...20
Chapter 3:Analytical framework...21
3.0.1:Individual and organisational learning ...21
3.0.2:The knowledge based view of the firm...22
3.1: What type of organisation is best suited learning? ...24
3.1.1. Lam: Professional bureaucracy, Machine bureaucracy, Operating Adhocacry and J-form organisation...24
3.1.2.Nonaka: SECI ...29
3.1.3: Nonaka: The hypertext organisation...31
3.1.4:Combining SECI and LAMs typology ...33
3.1.5: Criticism of SECI...34
3.1.6: Answer: Operating Adhocacry and Hypertext organisation...35
3.2: What type of interaction form is better for knowledge creation and transfer? 36 3.2.1: Practical co-operation and dispositional knowledge ...36
3.2.2: What is a ”Community of Practice”?...37
3.2.3:Criticism of COP ...39
3.2.4: Two different organisations finding common ground: the concept of
grounding ...40
3.2.5: Answer: close social interaction over time ...41
3.3: What strategies ought firms use to ensure knowledge transfer?...42
3.3.1:Top- down, bottom-up and middle-up-down management of learning...42
3.3.2: Synthesis; middle-up-down management for knowledge creation...43
3.3.3: Nonakian strategies for knowledge creation...45
3.3.4: Strategies from the theory of “communities of practice” ...45
3.3.5: Limitations of theory: What about hierarchies and learning?...46
3.3.6: General search procedures ...47
3.3.7: Collaborating as a strategy for knowledge creation and transfer...47
3.3.8:The age of the relationships; new networks new learning and old systems deeper learning? ...48
3.3.8: Dyads or networks ...49
3.3.9: Summing up strategies...50
3.4.1: Defining national systems of innovation ...52
3.4.2: The Norwegian National System of Innovation in the European context .53 3.4.3: the supply side of national systems of innovation ...54
3.4.4: Science and technology infrastructure institutions in Norway ...55
3.4.5: Answer: good access to knowledge infrastructure ...56
3.5:Theoretically based conclusions ...56
Chapter 4: Empirical analysis ...57
4.0:Presenting the cases ...57
4.1.1.Organisational types revisited...59
4.1.2:Combining Lam’s typology with SECI and COP...63
4.1.3:Organisational structure; hierarchy vs. flat organisation...66
4.1.4: The hypertext organisation revisited...66
4.1.5: Summing up; unambiguous correlation between organisational type and innovation ...67
4.2.1.Communities of practice revisited ...68
4.2.2:No dominant interaction form...70
4.2.3: “Trust” ...71
4.2.4: Grounding ...72
4.2.5: Physical proximity as beneficial for knowledge transfer...74
Average score...75
4.2.6: Actual proximity to collaboration partner ...75
4.2.7: Summing up; the relationship between interaction form and learning potential...77
4.3: Strategies for knowledge creation...78
4.3.1: Top down strategies for knowledge creation and transfer inside the firm...78
4.3.2: A Master- apprentice model ...78
4.3.3:“Cloning programs”...79
4.3.4: Is strategies for knowledge transfer unimportant?...80
4.3.5:A database for CVs and professional meetings ...80
4.3.6:The performance appraisal process...82
4.3.7: Courses...83
4.3.8:The importance of training/education for learning in firms: ...83
4.3.9: Bottom-up strategies for knowledge creation and transfer inside the firm....84
4.3.10:Space for exploration...84
4.3.11: An open corporate culture that encourages learning ...85
4.3.12: The dilemma between deepening existing knowledge and distributing knowledge widely ...86
4.3.13:Collaboration as a strategy for knowledge creation...87
4.3.14: Innovation as mean to an end: profit ...87
4.3.15: Exceptions; knowledge transfer as motivation for collaborating ...88
4.3.16: Dyads or networks revisited ...89
4.3.17: Long term strategies and relationships, the age of the dyads ...91
4.3.18:Summing up; strategies...91
4.4:How embedded are these firms to the Norwegian NSI?...93
4.4.1: Knowledge infrastructure as information sources ...93
4.4.2: Same nationality facilitates interaction...93
4.4.4:Financial support...94
4.4.5:Position in the value chain influences partner choice...96
4.4.6:Educational levels ...97
4.4.6:Geographical proximity to partners is less important? ...98
4.4.7: NSIs and MNEs – a contradiction?...98
4.4.8:Is there a connection between organisational type and NSI connection?...99
4.4.9: Summing up; what is the connection between these firms and NIS support structure?...99
Chapter 5: Preliminary conclusions ...101
5.0: Main objective revisited...101
5.0.1:General conclusions...101
5.0.2:Knowledge is socially constructed ...101
5.1: Is there a connection between organisational form and learning potential?...102
5.2: Is there a connection between interaction form and learning potential ? ...102
5.3: Strategies for knowledge creation and transfer...104
5.4: Connection to NSI knowledge infrastructure ...105
5.5: Main conclusion...105
5.6: Suggestions for further research ...106
Appendix...107
Bibliography ...107
Interview guide ...109
Questionnaire ...112
Brief presentation of the sample ...115
List of tables and figures
Page Table 1: characteristics of knowledge 11
Table 2: Combining Lam and Nonaka 33
Table 3: Presenting the firms and their product innovation 57
Table 4: Categorising the firms 67
Table 5: Innovativeness and organisational type 68
Table 6: The importance of shared values and visions 70 Table 7: The importance of different interaction forms for knowledge transfer 75 Table 8: The importance of education and training for learning 83
Table 9: Motivation for collaboration 88
Figure 1: Dyads and networks 89
Chapter 1: Introduction
The topic of this thesis is learning and innovation in the private sector.
1.1 Societal and scientific background
Why does the phenomenon of innovation intrigue scientists? The usual legitimisation for studies is that innovation provides the basis for rising standards of living through technological changes, providing growth in productivity. Innovations thus have a major impact on society. It is equally important, however, to understand that
innovations are not created in a vacuum, but are inherently a social process influenced and negotiated by stakeholders with political, social and economical objectives.
Previous theoretical frameworks regarded innovation as a result of the heroic acts of geniuses and spectacular entrepreneurs, whose creativity and visions drove the economy further ahead. Innovation was regarded as a relatively straight- forward process from invention to launch on the market, and the common view held was that innovations were based in advances in science.
In the last decades, theories have surfaced which take an entirely different view on innovation. Without ignoring the contributions of inventors and entrepreneurs, these theories look into the wider societal context in which innovations are constructed. The many actors involved in building new knowledge, and their combining efforts lead to the actual innovation. The interactive models on innovation also emphasize how the innovation process is a complex and dynamic process in which efforts is constantly redefined and redirected. The interactive model of innovation emerged in parallel with post-industrial production, where a new kind of competition was recognised. This kind of competition was more based on the companies’ ability to learn than on their tangible assets. It is argued that companies’ ability to learn is reflected in their innovativeness. Thus is the reciprocity between learning and innovation established.
The interactive model of innovation is actively advocated within the traditions of science and technology studies that lay the ground for ESST1.
1.2:The ESST program:
ESST is part of a research tradition that focuses on social, cultural, political and economic dimensions of science or technology (www.esst.uio.no/orginfo.html). This thesis focuses on cases where firms have embedded some of their and their partners’
knowledge into innovations. I will show how social, cultural and political dimensions inside firms and in collaborations between firms are inherent in the innovation
process.
1.3: Aim
The aim of this thesis is to shed light on enabling and constraining conditions for knowledge creation and transfer within a firm and between firms collaborating in order to develop a product innovation. The objective is two-sided. I want to explore conditions for learning in private organisations, as well as to explore what conditions for learning a collaborative innovation project can provide.
In order to do this, I will discuss the nature of knowledge creation, inherent in the innovation process, from the point of view of various theoretical disciplines and then test propositions in the literature with a live case study on learning in innovation collaboration in 15 Oslo based firms. I will look closer into how knowledge creation and knowledge transfer between the partners was an inherent part of the process that finally led to the launch of a product innovation, thus linking the interactive model of innovation to the knowledge based view of the firm.
1 ESST is an abbreviation for European studies of Society, Science and Technology.
1.4: Problem formulation
The main problem of this discussion can be formulated as a question:
* Which factors must be present in firms, and innovation collaborations, for significant learning to be generated?
This problem is broad, and can be answered from different perspectives. I have chosen to break down the overarching question above into smaller ones, thus also choosing look out posts, which influence the focus of the thesis. These look out posts are: organisational type, interaction form, strategies for knowledge transfer and connection to knowledge infrastructure.
1.5: Research questions 2
1. What type of organisation is best suited for learning? Is there a connection between organisational form and learning potential?
2. What type of interaction form is best suited for learning? What type of interaction is most common in the collaborations and what are its implications for learning?
3. What strategies do the firms use to ensure internal knowledge transfer in general, and what strategies do they use to ensure knowledge transfer between themselves and their partners?
4.How embedded are these Oslo-based firms to the knowledge infrastructure of the Norwegian national innovation system? What does this implicate for learning?
2 The analytical framework and the empirical analysis, chapter 3 and 4, are structured around these four questions. The heading 3.4, for instance, implies that it is a review of question number four above, in the third chapter.
1.6:Contributions
My theoretical contribution is to combine organisation theory, economical and sociological perspectives on learning, and on the firm. Using a pragmatic approach, I will select aspects from various theories to build a framework from which I will analyze the case studies of 15 firms. The empirical contribution is to bring voice to 15 Oslo-based firms. What do they regard as important factors for learning and
innovation?
1.7:Thesis outline:
The next section provides a conceptual framework, outlining the key concepts and perspectives adopted in the study. Next is research design and methods discussed in chapter two. The four research questions introduced above form the focus of the theoretical discussion in chapter three, and the empirical analysis in chapter four.
Finally, the theoretical and empirical findings are discussed in chapter five, where main conclusions are drawn.
1.8:Core concepts
In this section, I will introduce the most important concepts of this thesis, namely knowledge, learning, innovation and collaboration. The main problem of this thesis is:
Which factors must be present in firms, and in innovation collaborations, for significant learning to be generated?
1.8.1:What is knowledge?
1.8.2:Knowledge is something more than and different from information Information can be described as a set of general codes, data. For information to become knowledge, the actor has to interpret and give the information meaning, and each actor continuously do this by drawing on her/his experience, existing knowledge
base and other contexts. This subjectivity results in a relativistic and relational view on knowledge; knowledge will always be closely linked to the individual and his/hers groups (Hildrum lecture 16.103). Unlike information, knowledge is about commitment and beliefs; it is a function of a perspective or intention that exists prior to the
gathering process (Nonaka & Teece 2001:322). Following Plato, who defined knowledge as “justified true belief”, Nonaka & Teece views knowledge as “ a dynamic process of justifying personal belief toward the “truth” “ (Nonaka & Teece 2001:15).
This definition opens up for a more political and conflict perspective on knowledge, in that knowledge is a process in which we try to justify our personal beliefs. It also opens for focus on how value- laden knowledge is, depending on the prevailing norms of the community.
3 Baumard 1999:19 at ESST lecture by Hildrum 16.10.2000.
1.8.3: Knowledge is social
Knowledge is inherently dynamic, as it is created in social interactions. Knowledge is also more or less context –specific, depending on a particular time and space. This context is what differentiates knowledge from information (Nonaka & Teece
2001:14). According to Nonaka, knowledge is essentially more social than individual:
“ Knowledge is created by means of the interactions among individuals or between individuals and their environments, rather than by an individual operating alone “ (Nonaka & Teece 2001:22). The social context in which knowledge is created is active in this process. Working environment, social aspects, legislation, educational levels etc does matter. These factors influence the way knowledge is created.
1.8.4:Tacit knowledge is not easily transferred
In addition to the distinction between information and knowledge there is the distinction between tacit and codified knowledge. First and foremost, the distinction between tacit and codified knowledge is important because it sheds light on the difficulties inherent in communicating knowledge, both at the individual and
organisational level. Tacit knowledge can be defined as “ knowledge that is intuitive, unarticulated and that cannot be easily codified and transferred” (Lam 1999:5).
Polanyi was the first philosopher who coined the term “tacit knowledge”, stating how we sometimes “ can know more than we can tell”. Tacit knowledge entails both an operational and a cognitive aspect. The operational aspect is evident in know-how (embodied, tacit, operational knowledge), whereas the cognitive dimension entails
“beliefs, perceptions, ideals, values, emotions and mental models so ingrained in us that we take them for granted” (Nonaka & Teece 2001:319), factors that actively shape our perception of the world. The insight is that what we know is part of our
identity, and what we know shapes our outlook of the world, for instance what appear to be possibilities to some, appear as obstacles to other people.
Codified knowledge can be defined as knowledge that" can be stored or put down into writing without incurring undue losses of information” (Boisot 1995,Hildrum lecture 16.10).
Table 1: Characteristics of knowledge
(After Takeuchi 2001, in Nonaka & Teece 2001: pp 325,328):
Knowledge
*Always involves a person who knows
*Comes from experience we have reflected upon, made sense of and tested against others’ experiences
*Invisible, often comes to mind only when a problem must be solved or a question answered
*Flows through communities, between generations, organisations, cultures
*Circulates via informal, undocumented practices; stories and hallway meetings over a cup of coffee, and circulates more formally through artefacts; documents and products
*New knowledge is created at the boundaries of old knowledge
*Is an asset meaning different things to different people
* Can become outdated/obsolete instantaneously
*Is initially tacit/not codified
1.8.5: What is learning?
I choose to define learning as a process in which we acquire knowledge4. Teece et al (1997) define learning as “ a process by which repetition and experimentation enable tasks to be performed better and quicker, and /or enables new production
opportunities to be identified “ (Teece et al 1997:520). They emphasize how learning processes are social and collective, ranging from imitation to joint problem solving. In their view, learning requires search procedures and common codes of communication.
The aspect of improvement, knowledge as partially cumulating, is also evident in Dodgsons view. He defines learning in an organisational setting as “ The way firms build, supplement and organize knowledge and routines around their competences and within their cultures, and adapt and develop organizational efficiency through improving the use of these competences”. Competences are “ the focused combination of resources within a firm which define its business activities and comparative
advantages” (Dodgson 1996:55).
1.8.6:What is innovation?
The concept of innovation comes from the term “innovare” which means “ to make something new”. All firms that are included in this study have in some way or another made something new. They have all launched a new product on their markets.
The novelty aspect varies greatly across the different cases; some products are truly new to the whole world, while others are merely a change in existing products.
In a fundamental way innovation is “ enabling people to do things which have never been done before “ (Freeman & Soete 1997:2). A definition of “innovation” involves this aspect of novelty: “ a process of turning opportunities into new ideas, and of
4 The concepts “learning” and “knowledge creation” are used interchangeably throughout the thesis.
putting these into widely used practices” (Tidd et al, 1997: 24). Innovation is often categorized as product (offering something new) or process (changing the way a product is produced). This definition points to how innovation requires that actors have identified a opportunity they want to capitalize on, and have brought forward a new idea that suits stakeholder interests and developed this idea into a tangible innovation. The interactive models of innovation view innovation as a systemic activity, that involves a multiplicity of actors: “(…) innovation is not the activity of a single company, rather an active search process to tap into new resources of
knowledge and technology and apply them to products and production processes”
(Hauknes 1999:13). Then it becomes important to look at how firms collaborate in creating innovations.
1.8.7: What is collaboration?
Collaboration can be defined as “ any activity where two or more partners contribute differential resources and know-how to agreed complementary aims” (Dodgson 1993:13). Collaboration was in the STEP study of 1998 restricted to " to real interaction between partners that jointly contribute to the innovation" (Ørstavik &
Nås1998:8). Neither of these definitions point out the amount and quality that is required for joint contribution to be termed a “collaboration”.
1.9:The K-L-I-C concepts and their connections
In this chapter, I have introduced the core concepts in this thesis. Important debates were introduced on the tacitness of knowledge, organisations as knowledge creators and the importance of collaboration for innovation.
The connections between the concepts that were discussed here, is intricate and tightly knit. Learning is a process in which knowledge is created. Knowledge is sometimes made tangible in new products or processes that become part of economic transactions, and this process in which innovations are developed sometimes involve collaborations between different organisations.
In the next chapter, I will present a research design that enables a close look at how the above concepts are linked. The research is designed as to provide answers to the question of what factors must be present in firms, and in collaborations, for
significant learning to be generated.
Chapter 2: Research design and methods
This chapter outlines the general plan for the research work that provides the foundation for this thesis.
2.1:Design
The aim of this thesis is to shed light on enabling and constraining conditions for knowledge creation and transfer within a firm, and between firms that are
collaborating in order to launch a new product on the market. The exploration of the main question, which factors must be present in firms, and innovation collaborations, for significant learning to be generated, will be done using both theories on
organisations, learning and innovation, and by collecting empirical material from 15 Oslo- based firms that have been innovative. The rationale for collecting empirical material is to be able to hold the theoretical assumptions up against “real-life”
experiences, and thus test the validity of these assumptions in an empirical setting.
What is the rationale for investigating learning through innovation projects? Learning is intrinsically linked to innovation. This link becomes less vague if we think of a new product that appears on the market. It is not hard to imagine that some efforts in creating and transferring must lie behind its existence. To be able to create something new, new knowledge has to become tangible through a new product, some kind of learning must have occurred. Therefore, after looking for predictions in theory about what conditions must be present in a firms’ environment for learning to occur, I turn to 15 firms that have successfully launched a product innovation. Their stories of innovation will be used as an empirical basis from which the theory can be assessed.
The discrepancy or accordance between “theory and practice” is the leverage of this thesis.
2.2:Selection criteria and relation to previous studies
Studies that employ a qualitative approach often draw the sample strategically. This means that the informants are chosen in a purposive way in relation to the problem that is studied (Thagaard 1998:51). As is evident from the problem formulation, the relationship between learning and innovation is at the very core of this thesis.
Therefore, the research sample is drawn from the respondents of a study of successful innovations conducted by the STEP group5 in 2000 (Ørstavik 2000). This ensures that the firms have recently launched a successful product innovation6, and that they have collaborated during the innovation process of these products. These firms have also rated the projects’ significance for their technological competence as positive, and they are all located in the Oslo region.17 of the 120 firms with success stories was asked to contribute to this study7.
2.2.1:Getting access:
To get access to these informants, I developed an inquiry together with one of the researchers from the STEP group that had been engaged in both the 1998 and 2000 study. STEP used the opportunity to thank the firm for its prior cooperation, and asked them once more to contribute to a study. In addition, a sketch of this project was presented. A couple of days later, I contacted these firms by phone, introduced the study once more and asked for an interview. The response rate was overwhelming,
5 STEP is an abbreviation for Studies in technology, innovation and economic policy, a Norwegian research group.
6The study of innovation was in this study restricted to product innovation, defined as " When a firm has introduced a new product, or a new service related to products sold by the firm, over the last 3 years, or when a product is presently being developed that has not yet been launched on the market"
(Ørstavik & Nås, 1998:8).
7 Using these special cases as empirical basis for this study implies that data cannot be used for generalisations. The sample is biased and thus not appropriate for determining the question of how typical or atypical these cases are for the Norwegian, European or international industrial
innovativeness.
well beyond what I had hoped for. I was not able to reach one of the firms, since they either have changed address or name, or both; I was not able to track them down on the Internet or through phone operators. Of all the 16 firms I contacted, only 1 was not able to contribute. They were currently in a large lawsuit regarding their “ success- product” and did not want to distribute more information about the collaboration due to these conflicts. 14 of the 15 interviews revolved around the collaborations that resulted in product innovations. One firm that were not able to talk about their innovation project wanted instead to give information on a marketing alliance they were engaged in. I nevertheless chose to include this interviewee’s insights on learning and innovation.
I conducted the 15 interviews in the period from the 18th of June to the 16th of August. All interviews except one (in English) was conducted in Norwegian, due to the availability of Norwegian as the mother tongue both for the researcher and the informants. Each interview lasted 1-2 hours and all were taped and transcribed.
All firms and interviewees that contributed to this study are anonymous throughout the thesis. The firms are therefore differentiated in wide categories, and the
interviewees are not mentioned by name8. 2.3:Explorative objective
The objective of this study is explorative, and the study makes use of a qualitative approach. The multiplicity of factors involved in these cases makes the explorative approach suitable. Explorative research is often seen as a precondition to development of subsequent hypothesis about causality.
One of the advantages of a qualitative approach is the flexibility it implies for the researcher in developing and specifying the problem formulation and focus, as new
8 For more information on the interviewee and their firms, see brief firm presentations in appendix.
findings emerge as relevant during the research (Thagaard,T 1998:45). Following this tradition, I validated the quality of my research design as I went along. 9 Experiences accumulated from doing the interviews and explorations into the literature on this subject have been actively used in the interview guide, and are also evident in how questions are phrased.
2.3.1: Comparative research
To be able to say something more general about conditions for knowledge creation and transfer in firms, and within collaborations, I found it necessary to study more than a couple of cases. 15 interviewees, one from each firm, were asked the same set of questions. The same interview guide and questionnaire have been used throughout the collection of the empirical material.
2.3.2:Interview as a method
One major weakness of interview as a research method is that the researcher only gets access to what the informant says s/he does, which can be very different from what s/he actually does. However, having an explorative objective and wanting to draw as much as possible on the experiences of business people, with no time for direct observation, interview was the best viable option. In order to be able to compare answers, the interview was semi- structured, structured because of the pre-developed questions, semi because of the varying succession of questions. Employing this
flexible strategy implies a risk to pose leading questions, influencing the informants to answer questions in a way that reflects how I ask them. However, the topics of this study is somewhat sensitive and personal, e.g. required that the informant were
9 Inline with a flexible, qualitative approach, I did two pilot interviews on the 5th of June, with two different informants working for one of Norway’s largest corporations. The primary objective of these was to use this experience to be able to develop more accurate and relevant questions, and limiting the interview guide so that the conversation would not last much over one hour.
willing to also reveal some individual and organisational imperfections. Hence, questions had to be asked accordingly, getting the informants to open up by
encouraging them. The interview guide was developed to explore some of the most important basic assumptions in the literature on organisational knowledge creation and innovation.
All interviews were typed and transcribed, to ensure accuracy.
2.3.2:Questionnaire as a method
The questionnaire was developed as a supplement to the interview guide, aimed at increasing the reliability of data. 10 The questionnaire11 was e-mailed to the
interviewees 1-2 days after the interview, in order for them to have the project fresh in mind. 14 out of the 15 informants responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire material will be used to provide illustrations of broad tendencies in the empirical material, as the sample is too small to provide a basis for quantitative generalisations.
Pre-developed categories in questionnaires have a major limitation regarding
informant validity. The researcher decides to what extent the indicators and variables represent reality, and the informant is not able to discuss the categories with the researcher, as an interview session allows room for. However, it makes the task of comparison easier to the researcher, and is as such a useful additional method to interviews.
10 Reliability refers to what extent the same indicators would produce similar results on repeated trials.
11 See the questionnaire in the appendix.
2.4:Time as a methodological challenge
The time that had elapsed since the other surveys sometimes implied either that the former STEP informants had quit their jobs, the firm had been acquired by another firm, or simply that the person available for me now, could not exactly remember the stories surrounding the success-product, and insisted instead of telling me about another cooperation project that seemed more immediately accessible and easier to talk about. The time that had elapsed since these projects were finished, or the products were launched is a threat to the reliability, or the extent of accuracy, that remains in stories of innovation that are a few years old. 12
12Psychological research indicates that memory is constructive.
Chapter 3:Analytical framework
In this chapter, I will present and discuss different but related frameworks for
learning and innovation: the theoretical framework of Lam, the theoretical framework of Nonaka,” Communities of Practice” and the theories of National innovation
systems, in order to build an analytical framework from which the empirical material can be analysed. The interview guide is also drawing heavily on insights from these frameworks.
3.0.1:Individual and organisational learning
Social science often discusses the link between the individual and a larger organisation, or even society at a higher level. This problem, referred to as “the micro-macro link”, is also evident in the case of learning. We experience the world as individuals. From this perspective, all learning is individual, since it is only
individuals who act.
Having this in mind, how can organisations learn?13 The presence of an individual possessing the required knowledge for a task does not mean that the organisation at large is able to use this knowledge. Often knowledge will be kept inside the members of the organisation forcing the organisation to operate in unnecessary ignorance.
How is knowledge inherent in organisations? Organisations are obviously “holding environments” for knowledge, as knowledge is inscribed for instance in the archives and accounting systems, making the organisation less dependent on each individual working for it. But in a more direct sense, organisations represents knowledge, that is,
13 Throughout this thesis, I refer to organisational learning as learning and knowledge creation in a general sense, which take place within an organisational setting. I consider it difficult to distinguish between single-loop and double-loop learning based on the limited empirical material. Hence, I do not take a stand to whether learning is of a single- or double loop character. The focus is instead on what Argyris & Schon call “deutero” learning, which is learning how to learn. This is more important than deciding whether a specific incidence of learning should be termed single loop (changed action without changing parameters for action) or double loop (large discrepancies between present situation and goal requiring changes of parameters of action).
it knows how to do certain things, it has strategies for performing complex tasks, and opinions about what goals are valuable, and norms about how one should go about to attain those goals. An organisation has a certain type of collective knowledge.
Collective knowledge can be defined as “ Ways in which knowledge is distributed and shared among members of the organisation (…) the accumulated knowledge of the organisations stored in its rules, procedures, routines and shared norms (….) (Lam 1999). Firms thus embed knowledge in documents, archives, and in the minds and bodies of their employees. Sometimes, as was the case for the sample in this study, firms also embed knowledge in a new product, termed a product innovation.
Organisations are the main vehicle for technological change, as they carry through innovations.
3.0.2:The knowledge based view of the firm
In the social sciences, evolutionary economists and innovation researchers talk of how the new “learning economy” is totally changing the way firms operate, how they produce and how they innovate. In the learning economy, learning is the most important process and knowledge the most important resource (Lundvall & Johnson 1994). Lundvall emphasizes how the learning economy introduces a new kind of competition, not as much based on knowledge, as on the firms’ ability to learn.
Indirect learning, which is seen as a by- product of economic activities by traditional economists, is in the learning economy regarded as equally important to direct learning that takes place within the educational system. The perspective of the learning economy presupposes a vision of firms as knowledge creating entities.
This thesis draws on insights from this research tradition that focuses on firm’s resources. This research tradition argues that competitiveness is the result of lower
costs; higher quality and product performance stemming from how well the firm manages or controls its scarce resources. Its competitiveness is not so much due to strategic moves/countermoves (as the strategic conflict approach would assume, for instance Shapiro) or to defensive actions against competitive forces (the structure- conduct performance paradigm, e.g. Porter 1980) (Teece, Pisano & Shuen 1997:511).
Learning, skill acquisition, accumulating intangible assets and management of knowledge and know-how then become strategic issues for every firm that wants to survive and possibly prosper. This theoretical strand may be termed the knowledge – based view of the firm.14
These theorists emphasize how organisations are support structures in which
knowledge can be created: “An organization cannot create knowledge by itself. What the organization can do is support creative individuals or provide the contexts for them to create knowledge” (Takeuchi, in Nonaka & Teece 2001:322)
What then is the applicability of the knowledge-based view of the firm? Is the term “ a knowledge creating company” only applicable to so-called “high-tech” companies, or in sectors where the scientific content of innovation is increasing or large? Brown
& Duguid (1998) argue that models portraying the competitiveness’ of firms, as knowledge –dependent, are applicable relatively independent of sector: “ all firms are in essence knowledge organizations. Their ability to outperform the marketplace rests on the continuous generation and synthesis of collective, organizational knowledge”
(Brown & Duguid 1998:91). The central question here concerns what firms should do to generate valuable knowledge. What does theory prescribe that organisations should do in order to create knowledge? The four dimensions of the question of what factors must be present in firms, and in collaborations, for significant learning to be
14 I believe that all theories used in this thesis can be included in the category of ” knowledge-based view of the firm”.
generated 15 is investigated in this succession: organisational type, interaction form, strategy and NSI-connection. In the following section, I will show that the type of knowledge the firm depends upon varies across organisations.
3.1: What type of organisation is best suited learning?
This section is about different organisational types and their suitability for learning and innovation. The theorists used in this discussion are Lam and Nonaka.
3.1.1. Lam: Professional bureaucracy, Machine bureaucracy, Operating Adhocacry and J-form organisation.
In this section, I will discuss different organisational types, presenting a framework developed by Lam. The perspective developed by Lam in 1998 is based on various theoretical insights, ranging from to Mintzberg to Nonaka. Lams’ ambition is to combine and synthesize these theories into one framework in order to analyse the knowledge activities within different firms. Her framework is intended to explain how knowledge, societal institutions and organisational forms interact to shape learning and innovation (Lam1999: 3). I interpret Lams’ typology as a Weberian ideal typology or an archetype. This implies that there is nothing normative about this model; it merely brings forward some characteristics of organisational forms and its accompanying types of knowledge.
Two dimensions lay the ground in Lam’s framework; knowledge as tacit/explicit (the epistemological dimension), and the individual /the collective as “knowledge sites” or knowledge agents (the ontological dimension). Combining these two dimension result
15 The problem formulation on page 3 chapter one.
in a four-fold typology of organisational forms: “ Professional Bureaucracy”,
“Operating Adhocacry “, “ Machine bureaucracy” and “ J-form organisation”16. In a “ Proffesional Bureacracy” the most important knowledge form is explicit and individual. This type of organisation “derives its capability from embrained knowledge of trained experts” (Lam 1998a: 13). Embrained knowledge is formal, abstract knowledge that is acquired individually through formal studies, a general and transferable knowledge acquired by the process of “ learning by studying”. The individual is given autonomy, but the structure remains bureaucratic. In a PB, general principles and well-defined knowledge are used in problem solving, thus restricting use of tacit knowledge. In PB- organisations, the transfer of knowledge is weak because of strict status boundaries. PBs are also likely to host an elitist corporate culture based on “professionalism”, that could impede innovation.
Lam’s second organisational form is called “ Machine Bureaucracy”, and this organisation is most dependent on encoded knowledge (explicit and collective
knowledge). This type of organisation is constantly working to reduce the tacitness of the knowledge base, engaging in continuous codification/ externalisation. Codified knowledge in procedures and written rules reduces the organisational dependence upon its individuals. The hierarchy itself, the structures and the procedures are the knowledge agent. Specialisation, standardisation and control enhance its efficiency, and routine tasks require minimal formal knowledge from the individual. The MB type of organisations accumulates knowledge slowly, and is not equipped to tackle fast changes. I believe that the relevance of Argyris & Schons’ distinction between theory about use and theory in use to be greatest in this type of organisation. The organisation simplifies the tasks to a large extent in job descriptions and manuals, and
16 The abbreviations PB, MB, OA and J-form are used throughout the thesis.
thus its “theory about use” is diverging from the actual practices of the organisation (theory in use)17. This discrepancy is unhealthy for information and knowledge
transfer, making the gap between top management and frontline workers more visible.
In both PBs and MBs knowledge is highly standardised. In the next two categories, knowledge is much less standardised, and thus harder to transfer.
Drawing mainly upon tacit and individual knowledge, the third organisational category “Operating Adhocracy “ “draws its capability from the diverse know-how competencies and practical problem solving skills embodied in the individual
experts” (Lam 1998a: 15). OA relies on tacit, individual, embodied, context- specific knowledge, and the main knowledge agent is the individual within a project group. In this organisation type, tacit knowledge is generated, but not accumulated because of the context- specificity of the knowledge.
Lam’s fourth category is called the “ J-form organisation”, and is modelled after Japanese organisations. An J-form organisation is “ an organisation which derives its capability from knowledge that is “embedded` in its operating routines, team
relationships and shared culture “ (Lam 1998a: 15). The most prevalent knowledge form in a “J-form organisation” is tacit, collective knowledge embedded in a social community, inherent in organisational routines and shared norms. Knowledge is specific to the relationship and distributed across the community, through cross functional groups, facilitating broad based learning, centred on the firm.
Responsibility for product planning lies in the hands of the product development groups, a multi-functional project team comprising members of diverse backgrounds.
The J-form organisation combines a hierarchical leader structure with ad-hoc teams, glued together by a strong corporate culture. In a J-form organisation, the hierarchy
17 The difference between theory about use and theory in use stems from the works of Argyris, see for instance Argyris & Schon (1996).
integrates more than it controls the individuals. Using various ad hoc teams implies a large degree of job rotation, facilitating broad learning. The J-form organisation generates and accumulates tacit knowledge through continuous “learning by doing”
and thus learning inside a J-form organisation is potentially conservative, and the organisation is best suited for incremental innovation.
The connection between these organisational types and learning is expanded upon in Lam 1999. The key to differential learning potential according to Lam is tacit
knowledge: “The key factor that differentiates their learning capability is their ability to create organisational relationships for harnessing tacit knowledge” (Lam 1999:29).
The PB and MB are regarded as the least learning supportive organisational types.
PBs is rooted in an open labour market based on high levels of specialisation. The PBs is geared towards generation of explicit knowledge, and is characterised by
“narrow learning, inhibits innovation” (Lam 1999: 26, figure 4). MB presupposes a bureaucratic model that seeks to eliminate and control tacit knowledge, and is rooted in an internal labour market. The learning here is superficial, and the innovation limited.
The OA is perhaps the “most appropriate structure for firms engaging in an innovative, dynamic and unpredictable environment”(Lam 1999:27), and the most
“knowledge intensive, focusing on the strategic advantage of continuous change, adaptation and entrepreneurship” (Lam 1999:29). This requires, however, that a localised inter- firm career network, a la Silicon Valley, support it. Otherwise, the OA would meet pressures to bureaucratise, and the individuals would loose their
incentives for tacit knowledge accumulation. In the OA, individuals enjoy the greatest degree of autonomy. The organisation encourages entrepreneurial behaviour and
experimentation, thus having potential for achieving radical innovations (Lam 1999:29).
Both the OA and the J-form organisation are ”non-hierarchical organisations based on decentralised problem solving and multi-disciplinary team working” (Lam 1999:29).
As mentioned above, the J-form organisations is in accordance with incremental learning and smaller, continuous change. It requires a stable internal labour market and a broad based educational system. Because of the internal labour market, learning in a J-form organisation is conservative, which inhibits radical innovation. The J-form organisation is distributing knowledge widely, and depends on the collective
competence of its members. Tacit knowledge is accumulated and core competences are cultivated within a J-form organisation.
Lam does not seem to prescribe accurately what firms should do to create knowledge.
The next theory provides an answer to the how- question by a model of knowledge creation called SECI. It is more micro- oriented, drawing on organisational theory, psychology and sociology. Moreover, it attempts to synthesize western and Japanese insights on organisational learning. The epistemological and ontological dimensions evident in the works of Lam are also at the core of Nonakas’ theory of knowledge creation. The focus of Nonaka is both on how knowledge is created (SECI) and a theory of what kind of organisation that would provide the better breeding grounds for knowledge creation (Hypertext).
3.1.2.Nonaka: SECI
Nonaka and colleagues argue that it is the activities within the continuum between tacit and explicit that create knowledge. Knowledge creation can be defined as “ a continuous, self-transcending process by means of which one transcends the
boundary of the old self into a new self by acquiring a new context, a new view of the world and new knowledge. In short, it is a journey ‘from being to becoming’ “ (Nonaka & Teece 2001:16). They have developed a model of a knowledge spiral that moves upwards from the micro to the macro level. It starts with shared tacit
knowledge, through making tacit knowledge explicit, through combining explicit knowledge, and the final stage of one spiral sequence is a process where explicit knowledge is internalised within individuals (again made tacit). One sequence of spiralling follows the other, moving constantly upwards from the individual to the organisational level.
Four different learning types are involved in the spiral, and these must be combined in an organisation for it to reach its knowledge potential. These are externalisation, internalisation, socialisation and combination (Nonaka 1994:19). These four modes must be organisationally managed to form a continual cycle. Nonakas’ spiral model of knowledge accumulation starts with socialisation, followed by externalisation, combination and internalisation18. “ Socialization” is the process of creating tacit knowledge through shared experiences. One common tool for socialisation is the master-apprentice model used i.e. in “on-the –job-training”. “Externalisation” is the process of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. These codifications typically result in concept creation. This conversion is the most powerful one,
enabling transfer of knowledge across organisations. “Combination” is the process of combining and reconfiguring existing explicit knowledge through social processes.
18 The abbreviation SECI is used throughout the thesis.
Organisational databases and communication networks are examples of facilitating tools for this mode of knowledge conversion. “Internalisation” is the type that resembles common- sense notions of learning, which is the process where one converts (somebody else’s) explicit knowledge into (one’s own) tacit knowledge.
Typically, explicit knowledge is shared/distributed throughout the organisation and then converted into tacit knowledge by the individuals. Such shared mental models become a valuable asset to the organisation.
This pattern also fits into how knowledge is created through the innovation process.
Nonakas’ answer to the question of how to coordinate the knowledge of individuals and embed this knowledge in a new product is that socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation must occur in order to successfully create
innovations. One can imagine the starting point being a certain community that is committed to developing a particular technology. This community shares its
knowledge tacitly, through active membership. Next it starts to conceptualise and put words and numbers to its insights, thus codifying the once tacit knowledge. Then it can combine information from both within and outside the community in order to for instance create a product. The explicit and combined knowledge will be internalised, thus once again made tacit and embodied to individuals. The community, i.e. an innovation project team, might break up and the cycle can begin; now involving different individuals at different places.
One potential reason why organisations fail to use the experience from one project to another is that they don’t take the time to internalise the experience of the innovation process after the product has been launched, and don’t take the time to immediately start the socialisation process, in which tacit insights from prior projects are shared within the community.
One major shortcoming of the SECI theory is that it does not specify how the spiral is gradually involving more people, moving upwards on the ontological dimension. It seems likely that the spiral cannot grow endlessly. Is it possible that there is a threshold over which the spiral starts to subtract?
The question of how the knowledge spiral should be managed is resolved by the theory of the hypertext organisation as an ideal setting for all four knowledge conversion modes.
3.1.3: Nonaka: The hypertext organisation
Nonaka argues that the hypertext organisational design facilitates the cyclical knowledge conversion (SECI). The hypertext organisation is both a formal
hierarchical structure (business system) and a self-organizing structure (task force or project team). This hybrid organisational form is called hypertext organisation, because, just as in using hypertext, individuals interact with different layers, and switch between different parts of the whole. As surfers of the Internet can switch between different layers, the surfers of the hypertext organisation can readily switch between different contexts; the business system, the project team and the knowledge base.
The middle layer of the hypertext organisation is the hierarchical business system, built for efficient routine work. The project- team layer is at the top, consisting of various teams, in which members come from different business system units. The hierarchical nature of the business system makes the knowledge conversion forms internalisation and combination most prevalent. Complementing these conversion forms are the project teams that generate externalisation and socialisation.
Organisational knowledge generated in these two layers is recategorised and recontextualised (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995:167) in the bottom – layer called the
“knowledge- base layer. This layer is of course not a concrete entity, or organisational unit, but is embedded in the technology, culture and vision of the company.
Nonaka’s notion of the hypertext organisation is similar to what Tidd et. al call “ project execution teams”, “ a full-time project team where functional staff leave their areas to work on the project, under project leader direction” (Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt 1997:257)
I regard the theoretical construct of the hypertext organisation to be an ideal typical learning organisation. Thus it is interesting to look more into what part of the knowledge spiral other organisational types than the hypertext organisation is adept at. I believe it is interesting to combine the insights of Nonaka and Lam to look at what organisational types are more likely to generate what sort of knowledge.
3.1.4:Combining SECI and LAMs typology
Combining the theoretical contributions of Nonaka and Lam would imply that externalisation/codification is a precondition for MBs and the most common knowledge conversion form in this type of organisation. In MBs, much of the
interaction is through documents and orders, thus reducing uncertainty in a movement towards routine tasks, thus, optimising efficiency. In PBs, combination of explicit knowledge is the dominant knowledge conversion, and a common type of interaction revolves around research articles and other forms of documentation. In a J-form organisation, the most common form of interaction is often close physical interaction over a problem that must be solved, in projects, an thus socialisation is the more common knowledge conversion form in this type of organisation. In OAs interaction take place in distinct projects that relay more on individual competence than
common/shared competence, making internalisation a precondition.19
Table 2: Combining Lam and Nonaka
Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge Individual OA - internalisation PB -combination Organisational J-form -socialisation MB - externalisation
19 Potential problems concerning this combination of theories are picked up in more depth in chapter four page 64, where the sample are categorised according to this four-fold typology.
3.1.5: Criticism of SECI
Recently, theorists have started to criticize the well-renowned framework developed by Nonaka and colleagues. The criticism focuses on how the theory fails to answer one very fundamental question: What is the force that drives the knowledge spiral?
How does the spiral get started? Scharmer, in Nonaka & Teece 2001, develops the concept of self-transcending knowledge as a reply. ”Self-transcending knowledge” is
“ tacit knowledge prior to the embodiment in day-to-day practices” (Scharmer, in Nonaka & Teece 2001:70). Applied to/on the innovation process, the focus should be on how a vision is crystallised and materialised. Having a concrete idea about how to materialise various knowledge bases is the actual starting point for the entire
innovation process. Scharmers’ answer to what drives the knowledge spiral is true motivation, shared will and communities of commitment. In order for knowledge creation to occur within one organisation, employees must move from “thou shalt” to
“ I will”; the origin of action must be internally based. The aspect of autonomy that is brought forward here is generally agreed upon in the literature of the knowledge- based view of the firm, and is intimately linked to the discussion on flat structures over hierarchies. The common argument is that decision-making must take place where the relevant knowledge is located, because some knowledge is tacit. Following this rule of thumb will ensure the quality of decisions (Grant 2001, in Nonaka &
Teece 2001:156).
3.1.6: Answer: Operating Adhocacry and Hypertext organisation
The theoretical answer to the question of what kind of organisation is best suited for learning is for Lam the Operating Adhocacry and for Nonaka the hypertext
organisation. One major difference between the OA and the hypertext organisation is that while the OA is most dependent upon the tacit, embodied knowledge of the employees, the entire knowledge spiral is organisationally managed in the hypertext organisation. Another difference is that the OA work mostly on projects, while in the hypertext organisation, the project teams co-exist with a hierarchical structure.
Above, we saw that the SECI knowledge spiral had to be organisationally managed to become continuous. The following section focuses on which interaction forms that encourage knowledge creation. The theories that are reviewed here have a high opinion of close social interaction, and practical co-operation. I believe this focus agrees mostly with the socialisation mode of the SECI knowledge spiral.
3.2: What type of interaction form is better for knowledge creation and transfer?
The second research question concerns which interaction forms firms should encourage in order to enhance learning within their organisation. Main theorists in this section are Wenger and Brown & Duguid, who view observation and practical co- operation as interaction forms for knowledge transfer.
3.2.1: Practical co-operation and dispositional knowledge
Senge is one of the pioneers advocating “the learning organisation”. In his famous 1990 20book he reviews common obstacles for organisational learning. Learning by trial-and error, he argues, is the most important and common/usual form of learning, but not suited for innovation. Strategic business choices, choices concerning research and investments, are of such a type that the actor who chooses the action will not immediately experience the consequences, and therefore will not learn. In situations where the consequences are not evident and visible in the near future, the failure to learn is great.
At the contrary, Brown and Duguid argue, the type of knowledge most relevant for an organisation is “Know-how”, or dispositional knowledge, the ability to utilize “know- what” in various situations. Nonakas’ framework also place great importance on on- the-job training resulting in dispositional, tacit knowledge. Brown and Duguid (in Nonaka & Teece 2001:50) argue that dispositional knowledge, the technical
component of tacit knowledge, do not often lie within individuals but are distributed among an ensemble of people working together. Dispositional knowledge entail an ability to respond to actual situations and get things done rather than only talk about them in the abstract” (Nonaka & Teece 2001:50), and this ability is distributed in a
20 Senge 1990 is the English version, while I refer to the Norwegian translation of 1999.
social group through social practice. Brown and Duguids’ primary example is the 1996 study of Xerox repairmen by Orr. This study indicated that the reps daily activities differ from their job descriptions. Their dispositional knowledge was distributed, collective, partial and improvisational, and this was not reflected in the job manuals. The argument is that dispositional knowledge is socially embedded in daily practices, and the accumulation of dispositional knowledge thrives best in
“communities of practice”.
3.2.2: What is a ”Community of Practice”?
Etienne Wenger introduced the concept of Communities of practice21. “Communities of practice” can be defined as “groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise (…) share their experiences and
knowledge in free-flowing, creative ways that foster new approaches to problems”
(Wenger & Snyder 2000: pp 139-140). A COP is a group of people who work together and shares knowledge, with a large potential for knowledge creation.
The theory of COP can be viewed in at least two different ways. One is to regard it as a general sociological theory about how work communities emerge wherever people come together to perform specific tasks. In this view, COP exist in all companies, although they are seldom acknowledged as important learning sites/societies by the management and are thus often neglected or repressed by the organisation. Another interpretation is to define COP more narrowly, as institutionalised COP that is actively supported by the organisation. The former view opens up for conflicts between COP and the organisation, whereas their interests have merged in the latter interpretation of the theory.
21 The abbreviation COP is used throughout the thesis.
COP emerges spontaneously as members select themselves, and thus the boundaries are flexible22. COP emerge as shared practice over time enables individuals to develop a common outlook on their work, and they will eventually share judgments about what to do, when to do it and what constitutes a job well done (Nonaka & Teece 2001:52)23
They are based on personal transfer of knowledge, where groups of “apprentices”
learning together are more efficient than master- apprentice one-way transfer. Their primary output is knowledge, which they share in creative ways, for instance by passing on work experience as stories. They have a strong commitment to a common goal and continuously assess their own behaviour, and this evaluation is more
successful than top-down initiated evaluation. Within COP, learning is viewed as inseparable from practice/work, and individual learning is viewed as inseparable from collective learning: “ learners are acquiring not explicit, formal “expert knowledge”, but the embodied ability to behave as community members “ (Brown and Duguid 1991:48)24. Workplace learning entails building “communities”, negotiating tacit frames for interpretation. People (and organisations) who want to learn something must have contact with those who do what they want to learn: co presence makes learning possible and absence excludes learning.
Peripherally participating in a COP is the best position for learning. It is argued that being on the periphery of competent practitioners doing their “business as usual” is a
22 The size of COP varies considerably, from 10 to 400 people. One criticism can be raised, based on empirical insights in social psychology that indicate that large groups over 20-30 people will tend to develop diverging interests. It seems unlikely that communities are so large.
23 This aspect of COP resembles Nonakas’ theory about the cognitive and operational aspects of tacit knowledge (believes, perceptions)- does this imply that COP only support tacit knowledge? The aspects of codification and internalisation are not mentioned at all.
24 Questions that can be raised against the COP-theory are: do COP only convert tacit into tacit knowledge, that is, does it only create socialisation?
